Wife Successfully Sues Husbands Mistress for Alienation of Affection.

[sabrina 1]

There are several similarities between this case and the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter/Elizabeth Edwards situation. Including the fact that the husband was a lawyer.

Apparently there are seven states in which a spouse can sue the lover of a cheating spouse and sometimes, as in this case, win.

North Carolina woman sues alleged mistress under "alienation of affection" law.

Wife Wins $9 Million From Husband's Alleged Mistress


Cynthia Shackelford with her dog, Bailey.
(Courtesy Cynthia Shackelford)

A North Carolina woman who won $9 million in a lawsuit against her husband's alleged mistress has a simple message for would-be homewreckers out there: "lay off."

"My main message is to all those women out there who might have their eyes on some guy that is married to not come between anybody," Cynthia Shackelford told "Good Morning America" today. "It's not good to go in there. It hurts the children. My children are devastated. I'm devastated.

The article states that it is not uncommon to see cases like this but rare to see a jury award this kind of money to a spouse. The main reason being that most mistresses and lovers don't have much money.

She argued that the other woman deliberately went after her husband. She blames him also but claims it 'takes two to tango' and apparently the jury agreed with her:

"She set her sights on him. ... She knew he was married," Shackelford said of Lundquist Monday. "You don't go after married men and break up families."

But even Shackelford was shocked at the dollar amount.

"I was surprised. It was totally up to the jury to come up with that number," she said.

Lundquist, 49, now the dean of students at Wells College in Aurora, N.Y., told "Good Morning America" it would be "inappropriate" to comment on the case at this time, but told The Greensboro News & Record last week that she planned to appeal the case.

While her husband claims he always cheated on her and therefore his mistress is not responsible for the break-up of the marriage, she claims to have given up her career as a teacher to devote herself to her family and that the mistress did interfere with that marriage and it mightt not have broken up had she not done so. She says she thought her husband was in love with her and that they would grow old together. Now, she says, that will not happen.

She is now out of work, and her husband has not paid the court ordered support of $5,000.00 a month he is supposed to pay. She worries, she says, about the effects this has had on her two children who are now in their 20s.

Her daughter recently let people know what she thinks of her father 'he is a dirtbag' she wrote.

This law, the article says, was passed during the time of common law marriage when women were considered property. If someone 'stole' them from their husbands, they were stealing property. So, only men could sue under it at that time.

Now, times have changed, and if there is going to be such a law still on the books, at least it's nice to know that women too can avail themselves of it.

Apparently it remains on the books despite efforts to change it, because Conservatives do not want to be seen to be in favor of divorce.

[zazen]

1. but they've eliminated the claim of "criminal conversation," thank God

A woman could date a man who was married who didn't tell her he was married, or WORSE, date a man who was legally separated but not divorced, and still be liable for "criminal conversation." Ignorance of his married or separated (with papers or otherwise) state was not a legal defense.

That was bullshit.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. She should have sued her husband.

No? :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

3. She divorced him and was awarded $5,000 dollars a month

which she hasn't been receiving so far. But this law seems to be directed at anyone who interferes in the marriage and contributes to the destruction of the marriage. Not sure she could have sued him under that law.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Hmmmmmm, don't the Edwards and Hunter all live in North Carolina?

[sabrina 1]

7. Yes, and apparently Elizabeth Edwards, according to the

article, did threaten to sue Andrew Young for helping to destroy her marriage. I don't know why she didn't sue Lisa Druck aka Rielle Hunter, but also in the article it does say that while there are about two hundred cases filed against third parties, lovers/mistresses every year, you 'have to be ready to air all your dirty laundry in public'. That would be a deterrent, although if Hunter continues to smear the family, who knows, maybe she'll change her mind.

[petronius]

5. Do I understand the husband correctly - this mistress didn't alienate his affections,

because they were always alienated? The wife can't be pissed about this mistress because there were so many others? Pretty sordid tale...

Personally, the only way I can see this law being justified is if there was proof that the 3rd wheel acted out of deliberate malice towards the cheated on spouse. Barring that, I've always felt the outsider was the most innocent participant, since they really don't owe anything to the cheatee (which is not to say that it isn't a repugnant act for both participants)...

[sabrina 1]

6. I guess the jury didn't have to consider his past behavior

and obviously they believed the wife that as far as she was concerned, the marriage would not have broken up if the third person had not 'targeted him'.

I think the wife's attorney could point out that even if there were other affairs, they didn't break up the marriage. This one did, and the wife claimed that that was the goal of this mistress. To consider the others that he claims he was with, they may only have been interested in a short term relationship, not in destroying the marriage?